"Right to Refuse Seizure" and the Evolution of Ownership: What Tokenized Securities Will Reconsider in 2026

In the era of digital assets, the most fundamental question is “What is true ownership?” Bitcoin’s answer was “an asset that cannot be censored or seized,” but this philosophy has not spread throughout the entire crypto asset space. Instead, the conflict between two forms of ownership—stocks and tokens—has become the greatest structural contradiction within the blockchain industry. 2026 will likely be a turning point where this contradiction finally begins to be resolved.

The Value Distribution of Stocks and Tokens: Why Did Uniswap Take Five Years?

In November 2025, more than five years after the birth of crypto assets, Uniswap, the industry’s largest DEX, finally enabled its fee distribution mechanism. However, the process leading to this decision exemplifies how the blockchain industry had been stagnating over ownership issues.

After years of governance disputes, a serious crisis emerged in 2024. A stakeholder group, generally regarded externally as “shareholders,” obstructed proposals to return profits to token holders. Nevertheless, the proposal for UNIfication was ultimately approved with over 62 million votes in overwhelming support.

This history reveals a deep structural problem. In theory, UNI token holders are the “owners” of the protocol. In reality, however, the front-end operators (off-chain companies) have monopolized all the value generated from fee income. Token holders, despite being nominal “owners,” were completely excluded from profit sharing.

The Dilemma Created by Legal Rights Gaps: Is Complete On-Chain Ownership Truly Possible?

Uniswap’s case is just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly all revenue-generating protocols face similar issues. The root cause is that shareholders and token holders are fighting over the same value pool, yet operate under entirely different legal, governance, and economic frameworks.

Various approaches have been proposed within the industry to resolve this conflict. One extreme is “full on-chainization,” which involves abolishing all stocks and transferring ownership concepts onto the blockchain. In this model, smart contracts serve as shareholder agreements, on-chain balances act as stock ledgers, and governance token voting functions as the board of directors.

However, there is a fundamental limitation: unless corporate assets, operations, and customers are all on-chain, off-chain judicial systems will always serve as the final arbitrator in disputes. No matter how precisely on-chain contracts are designed, if an off-chain legal system exists above them, your “digital ownership” is powerless before off-chain enforcement.

For example, suppose you hold a tokenized real estate NFT issued via a smart contract. Even if the contract’s record declares “you own the property,” if the off-chain land registry record differs, presenting the NFT when a sheriff delivers an eviction notice is legally meaningless. The reality remains that off-chain enforcement prevails.

The “token-only” approach is only applicable to limited projects—like Bitcoin—an entirely on-chain system with no reliance on companies, employees, external servers, or dependencies. This is the core of Bitcoin’s innovation: an uncensorable, unseizable system. However, almost all Web2 and Web2.5 companies hold off-chain assets, customer bases, payment systems, and operational infrastructure.

The Essence of Ownership: Four Essential Rights Provided by Stocks

On the other end of the spectrum is the approach of abandoning tokens entirely and reverting to traditional stock forms. The advantage of this approach is clear—it avoids SEC scrutiny, regulatory concerns over securities, and the complexity of token economy design.

But the cost is significant. Immediate settlement, transparent ownership records, lower costs, and the ability to incentivize a global community—these are all sacrificed.

Traditional stock transfers remain costly, slow, and access-limited. Even in 2026, the processes required for public stock trading seem outdated compared to DeFi. Meanwhile, tokens, despite many flaws, have the potential to theoretically resolve these issues.

So, what can only stocks do? Four critical rights:

First, legal status and remedy rights. Stockholders retain legal standing, can file lawsuits, and exercise their rights. If directors breach fiduciary duties or commit fraud, they can seek damages within an established legal framework. Conversely, token holders (with few exceptions) lack recognized legal rights or protections.

Second, formal governance control. Shareholders elect directors, approve major transactions, and exercise codified rights. In contrast, governance tokens often amount to a false sense of control. Voter turnout is low (often under 10%), susceptible to whale manipulation, and lacks expertise. Ultimately, if the team disapproves of the results, they can ignore the vote, leaving discretionary human intervention as the final arbiter.

Third, legal clarity in value accumulation. In corporate acquisitions, shareholders have clear legal rights to profit distribution. Recent cases involving Tensor and Axelar show token holders are often completely ignored during buyouts. This strong legal backing makes stocks more reliably traded based on future profit expectations. Tokens, on the other hand, are often purely speculative, lacking intrinsic value.

Fourth, a broader and deeper investor base. The simple fact is that traditional capital markets’ investor pools and total purchasing power vastly surpass those of the crypto market. The US stock market is over 20 times larger than the entire crypto industry; the global stock market is over 46 times larger. Projects that choose tokens reach only about 2-5% of the potential purchasing power that was originally accessible.

The Turning Point in Capital Markets: What “True Ownership” Looks Like from 2026

However, the structure is rapidly changing. It is certain that 2026 will be a turning point for tokenized securities and next-generation on-chain governance.

In the US, the DTC Pilot Program (scheduled soon) will allow participants to exercise full rights over tokenized securities on the blockchain for the first time in the US. This is not just an experiment; it demonstrates that the entire US capital market infrastructure is transitioning onto the blockchain.

Nasdaq has proposed tokenized securities trading, and Securitize has issued fully on-chain, legally recognized shares. Companies like Centrifuge are tokenizing traditional stocks through SEC-registered security trading firms. The once-distant dream of integrating traditional finance with blockchain is now a reality.

For native crypto projects, the five-year journey to fee distribution by Uniswap serves as a clear warning. The binary conflict between stocks and tokens will not resolve itself. Intentional design, clear protocol definitions, and mechanisms to structurally resolve conflicts of interest are essential.

The fundamental issue underlying this conflict is regulatory uncertainty and the lack of a clear legal framework. However, in the US, the SEC’s “Cryptocurrency Project Clarification Act” is gradually establishing regulatory clarity.

By the end of 2026, we will no longer be debating “stocks versus tokens.” Instead, the focus will shift to “true ownership.” This will be transparent, transferable, legally protected, and natively digital ownership. And this ownership will be realized only through the fusion of Bitcoin’s promise of “resistance to seizure” and the legal protections provided by traditional finance.